The Trinity

[sojourner]

we live in a culture where we teach our children a imaginary man in a red suit brings presents once a year using magic.

We teach the same children that a a rather large bunny comes around and deliver's colored eggs and puts baskets with candy for them to find.


And they teach them

there was global flood that history says never happened
the world was created in one day
there is a afterlife no one can prove exist
woman came from a rib
A sky daddy watches everything you do


and some try and teach the trinity

You would teach them nothing of imagination, wherein lies growth, creativity, and depth of being.

 

[sojourner]

a little advise for ya bud, dont bring science to the table when debating a possible myth

take your own advice, bud.

 

[sojourner]

I like this

You would.
Look at it again:

For example, no one would ever claim that the husband and wife are the same individual

the Trinity doesn't claim that the Father and the Son are the same individual. It claims that they are distinct individuals. The problem is that both y'all are thinking of "God" in particular terms -- that is, as a being with "this-ness." But God isn't a particularity. Of course it doesn't make sense to say that one particular being is another particular being. But that's not what the Trinity is saying.

 

[idav]

You would.
Look at it again:

the Trinity doesn't claim that the Father and the Son are the same individual. It claims that they are distinct individuals. The problem is that both y'all are thinking of "God" in particular terms -- that is, as a being with "this-ness." But God isn't a particularity. Of course it doesn't make sense to say that one particular being is another particular being. But that's not what the Trinity is saying.

What doesn't make sense to me is saying that a human could be of the same substance as god and be 100% god. The math doesn't work for some reason.

edit: Taking it a little further it would seem obvious that if a son were begotten of god that he would be of the substance of god but still not be god. Bringing in the human aspect messes it all up.

 

[waitasec]

What doesn't make sense to me is saying that a human could be of the same substance as god and be 100% god. The math doesn't work for some reason.

edit: Taking it a little further it would seem obvious that if a son were begotten of god that he would be of the substance of god but still not be god. Bringing in the human aspect messes it all up.

i agree.
it's not a sacrifice knowing what the outcome was and what did jesus sacrifice...? jesus was god.

 

[sojourner]

i agree.
it's not a sacrifice knowing what the outcome was and what did jesus sacrifice...? jesus was god.

He sacrificed his humanity.

 

[sojourner]

What doesn't make sense to me is saying that a human could be of the same substance as god and be 100% god. The math doesn't work for some reason.

edit: Taking it a little further it would seem obvious that if a son were begotten of god that he would be of the substance of god but still not be god. Bringing in the human aspect messes it all up.

Soo..
If I'm of the same substance as a human, that wouldn't make me 100% human?

 

[idav]

Soo..
If I'm of the same substance as a human, that wouldn't make me 100% human?

If your dad is god and mother is human you are 50/50.

 

[waitasec]

He sacrificed his humanity.

while being divine?

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

hows about in english this time, or atleast a little sentance structure lol

has to be the longest sentence ive read, looks like something id write lol

Fair enough. I am long winded.

My point was that concepts like inalienable rights, human dignity, inherent equality and the value of individuality are all contemporary Enlightenment "myths" that we can't really derive from history or science and especially from a purely material view of the universe and the evolutionary process.

They are stories we tell ourselves and concepts that we hold up as sacred in every practical definition of that word, concepts that we augment with symbols, defend with taboos, celebrate with rituals, parades, declare in demonstrations, enforce in government and promote through institutions. Yet none of them have any objective grounding in reality. They sound nice and they make us feel warm inside and good. But they are merely useful for the organization and harmony of our species for the time being.

 

[sojourner]

If your dad is god and mother is human you are 50/50.

Are you? Why would God be limited to that?

 

[sojourner]

while being divine?

No, while being human.

 

[JacobEzra.]

1+1+1=1? or 1+1+1=3 or 1+1+1= something else?

A clover has three distinct and separate petals, but it is one clover. Such is a trinity.

In case you never seen a clover.....

I originally posted this example in another thread,but thought it would do well here to.

 

[waitasec]

if i may

Fair enough. I am long winded.

My point was that concepts like inalienable rights, human dignity, inherent equality and the value of individuality are all contemporary Enlightenment "myths" that we can't really derive from history or science and especially from a purely material view of the universe and the evolutionary process.

then you are a proponent of natural selection as it were.

They are stories we tell ourselves and concepts that we hold up as sacred in every practical definition of that word, concepts that we augment with symbols, defend with taboos, celebrate with rituals, parades, declare in demonstrations, enforce in government and promote through institutions. Yet none of them have any objective grounding in reality.

interesting. as evolving primates we have been able to rationalize the concept of solidarity...an objective we strive for.

They sound nice and they make us feel warm inside and good. But they are merely useful for the organization and harmony of our species for the time being.

which is what we objectionably experience for the time being...

 

[idav]

A clover has three distinct and separate petals, but it is one clover. Such is a trinity.

In case you never seen a clover.....

I originally posted this example in another thread,but thought it would do well here to.

Interesting. Notice that in that case one pedal is not The Clover which would make God the father only one third of god.

 

[waitasec]

No, while being human.

so jesus wasn't god...?

 

[idav]

Are you? Why would God be limited to that?

God having a son makes it like that. Why would god even have a son if god was just spawning more of himself? Did either god the father or Jesus create themself? God created his son no?

 

[michel]

so jesus wasn't god...?

From:-http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/nicene.html

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
​

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.
​

Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
​

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.
​

And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
​

" being of one substance with the Father"

"was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man"

Jesus Christ chose to be incarnate as a man - in order to come down to earth to go though the sacrifice which would give us the opportunity to have our sins forgiven

 

[outhouse]

You're forgetting that Jesus was also fully human, which would place him under the Father.

And there is the real historicity of it all.

Jesus was human.


I have played devils advocate on this and played youir side of the fence [pretty much] I have not gone after jesus divinity because thats not what this thread is about.

I have left that alone to a point and only tried to state that man created and defined the trinity and man defined jesus divinity, not the other way around.

But in the end jesus was a mortal man who died and is dead. His legend ONLY grew after his death and what we have was written by unknown authors who never met or knew jesus.

Oral tradition for a established religion is very accurate, but when it comes to developing religions we have a track record for ancient hebrews to change oral tradition to fit their needs much the way the first part of the OT was written.



YOU have not shown how man did not rule on jesus divinity, we have a clear picture of a roman emporer defining how divine jesus might have been because bishops argued like children over this.

In the end there was no divinity or anything holy about the math involved to reach the answer to jesus divinity, because ancient hebrews said so who never knew or witnessed jesus does not make it so.

 

[waitasec]

Jesus Christ chose to be incarnate as a man - in order to come down to earth to go though the sacrifice which would give us the opportunity to have our sins forgiven

or did god choose to be incarnate as jesus the man?
if god was incarnate wouldn't he already know the outcome of the sacrifice as a divine being? so it wasn't a sacrifice, because he is god.

this circular logic is making me dizzy...